I was confused with Impulsive energy component of gravitational energy.Latter I realised my gravity engine Concept works on concept of Overommable resistance.Its real Non-Perpetual gravity Engine

[Aman]

Please focus on Gravitational energy,try to extract maximum gravitational energy and try to use less additional energy to use maximum gravity input.
You can never break laws of thermodynamics but nobody prevented you to use Gravitational energy as input to the gravity powered engine.That might be the secret of Bessler Wheels.
I do not think that Bessler's gravitational energy powered Wheels broke laws of thermodynamics if really existed.

New research is breaking/has broke few laws:::No problem if logical explanation can be found for such breakage but Laws of Thermodynamics can never be broken just because it is law of common sense.

See this new research regarding optics which has broken a law in physics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za72ZFwjkjU

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science ... -video.htm

http://bigthink.com/ideas/19268

A text from http://bigthink.com/ideas/19268 :

For generations, the topic of invisibility has been of great interest. Although it was once dismissed as science fiction, it has now become reality on a small scale. Physics textbooks around the world must be rewritten and scientists must admit that they were wrong.

[Aman]

The criteria for resistance system in my engine is:

1) first of all it should be overcommable.
2) it should be present only downwards and not upward.
3) The resistance system should be highly/reasonably efficient(output by input)
4) Amount of overcommable resistance should be reasonably large enough.

If the resistance cannot satisfy these conditions,then it cannot be used in my engine.

It is like removing some upward resistance and hence you do not find water in left semi bowl in the analogous example(The resistance system is water in Rightside of semi bowl coupled to a energy converter water turbine.).

For example,If there is a 1 kg of solid powder to be lifted upwards,I need X amount of work done upwards.If I have to push 2 Kg of solid powder downwards,I need to consume X plus X (2X)amount of Gravitational energy. 

Net energy consumed = 2 X -X =X
Which is then converted to Net electrical energy Output.This is what one of the way of satisfacting the Principle, 

Mostly real Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Now notice that this cannot be achieved when such a overcommable resistance gradient occurs only with respect to time vertically.In other words,you need your system to be in a cyclic circular path OR in other words the gradient should occur in a circular cyclic path.

The only thing which I am a bit worried about is minimising losses which is the only real headache problem in my engine design for which I need your suggestions to keep Motor Cum Generator friction and back EMF losses to a minimum.
The losses should not be allmost equated to Net Output.
This is the only area where hard work is needed to be done which is possible only by proper selection of materials,Generator designs,motor designs,commutator designs,etc.Other than these crtical headache problems,my Gravity engine design is defect free design.Now this is not something impossible to control at all.Most machines during the design phase have the same headache problems about minimising losses.

I have now wasted enough time reading the complete rubbish you keep parroting. I hope no-one is fooled by the fairy tales you keep writing. I suggest you find some tangible proof to back up your theories before spreading them as fact.

I have detailed actual engine drawings,but on internet if I leak out my invention completely,anybody can copy and patent it before me.So to be on safer side,I have explained only analogy,example,theory.let it get published in official gazette and then I can leak out my actual engine here.

Atleast my theory is more sensible than many others where people try to make some mystical devices (perpetual motion Machines) which try to violate laws of thermodynamics.

Atleast my theory do not break laws of physics!which implies great confidence in my research work,more than most others just because my theory is very logical and is just an application of well known laws of physics.The concept of Creep is not a new theory.The concept of stress is not a new theory.My engine converts gravitational energy into electrical energy.Atleast my engine is not perpetual Motion Machine and is fully based on Logic and not on mystery or mystical trials.

It is based on common sense which people see everyday in nature.My engine exists in nature,it does not need any working Proof.Any way I am making a full fledged working prototype.

For you it is nonsense and fairy tale I keep on writing because you do not know any thing about Material science,creep and stresses and still you are interested in making Perpetual Motion Machines which Cannot work at all.

If you know by experience that cigarette is bad for health,do you need to proove that cigaratte is bad for you?

You know that Law of conservation of energy is true.
Do you want me to prove that Conservation law is true before I apply in my engine?

Now this case was similar to case about overcommable resistance which has weight during downward motion and is not provided during upward.You see for your self that more energy is needed to push more weight and less energy is needed to push less weight.Now this is what you see and apply in your daily life.
Do you want me to prove this too?

My engine do not make any new physics.It is just an application of known physics.

Similarly concept of stress is used in engineering for long time and is always proved to be true experimentally.
In this case,do you want me to prove once again that stress and creep occurs?

We know that gravity exists by regular experimentation and use.Do you want me to prove that Gravity exist?

The proof for whether my engine will work or not,is the Analogous Principle of my engine "or" so called theory as per you, which I have explained in this thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision of my previous discussion regarding similarity of creep with overcommable resistance:

The splashing of water resistance (overcomming of water resistance)is quiet similar to the Overcomming of cantilever beam resistance by the central weight loading.The machenism of failure of two column supported beam(Simply supported beam) works similarly.Let weight W be loaded at centre.The overcomeability of a good beam should be less at initial stage.Initially there will be allmost an equal and opposite reaction from the beam for the weight loading,with little energy spent for deformation.Slowly ATOMIC Dislocation takes place(slippage of atomic planes/slippage of grain boundaries)and a point reaches where stress become unbearable(stress is resistance to deformation).As the stress become unbearable,there will be minimum equal and opposite reaction for the weight loading and then the most amount of continuous gravitational energy will be used to overcome this beam resistance/stress and finally the beam breaks.This is analogous to what happens in my engine with the exception of the speed at which all this happens.This is what I learnt in Material Science subject.No good material science Professor in machenical engineering would deny this. 
The speed of this similar process is actually relatively fast,occurs in extended nanoseconds time in my engine whereas in beams it is very low speed [It occurs in beams due to mainly Creep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)  ] 

So my engine does not go against laws of physics.In fact what I have told here about mechanism of Creep due to stress becoming unbearable is the backbone of structural engineering and the first question for an interview could be "how beams fail under self weight load and external weight load."My technology does not bend physics but uses it in a altogether different way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Aman]

Billvon commented regarding this topic on some other thread on so,e other Science Forum Website.

Common sense tells one that if you get energy from dropping something it will not be greater than the energy used to lift it.

Oh,that's it???

That is correct if the amount of resistance is same,this conclusion was only made by considering no resistance or same resistance and a straight vertical process rather than circular.

That also depends on the resistance variation.

If there is no resistance upwards and some resistance downwards,then the amount of gravitational energy used to come downward has to be more than energy consumed to come down in absence of resistance.

A ball receives energy to come down from gravity.
Now,if a ball has to push something downwards to come downwards,it's a Commonsense that the ball will need more gravitational energy.

Basically billvon's comment violates law of energy conservation by indirectly claiming that energy needed to let heavy ball come downward in presence of no resistance=energy needed to let heavy ball come downwards in presence of resistance.Hence Billvon's statement is incorrect.Idiot wanted to prove me wrong by violating energy conservation law.

And for just revision,I also stated that in order to decrease the resistnce or eliminating resistance in upward motion which was available in downward motion,I am using a circular path rather than vertical.
Also he is thus disagreeing that gravity is continuous.He is also disagreeing the machenism of failure of a beam on application of weight.

[Fletcher]

Aman ..

Research the 'Brachistochrone' to gain insight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li-an5VUrIA

The brachistochrone problem was a problem pitched by mathematicians to find the faster path between two points when one point is lower than the other, thus loosing PE.

The cycloid is faster because average speed is greater than the straight line speed.

What is not often appreciated is that at any cross-sectional height the speeds of two identical objects are the SAME - that means at the same vertical height they have lost the same PE & acquired the same KE - they also exit at the same height with the same speed & KE.

So, it does not matter what path is taken the speed & KE will be the same, & in conditions of no resistance that will exactly equal the PE lost.

IOW's it does not matter what path is taken in the descent - the KE can never be made greater, only the time to traverse can be changed.

The brachistochrone experiment can be transferred to a wheel circular environment - a rim mass released just after 12 o'cl will slowly accelerate to 3 o'cl or 6 o'cl say - at both these positions it has the same KE as the same objects dropped vertically in free fall, assuming a massless wheel.

So Mr Billvon is not an idiot & is in fact correct.

[Aman]

I think you r confussed with my concept a bit.
I am not changing the shape of the path in this particular concept discussed here,I am just changing the path direction wise and I am also changing the amount of mass resistance and this mass resistance variation is only possible due to change of path.

The resistance element is here mass present for fraction of a second.
Whereas you thought that the resistance I am providing is by changing the shape of the path.

Anyway,
Thanks a lot for that amazing video,Lots to learn from this video,do share more of such videos.Who knows,I get an amazing idea for improved gravity Engines by seeing such videos!

[Aman]

What is not often appreciated is that at any cross-sectional height the speeds of two identical objects are the SAME - that means at the same vertical height they have lost the same PE & acquired the same KE - they also exit at the same height with the same speed & KE.

So, it does not matter what path is taken the speed & KE will be the same, & in conditions of no resistance that will exactly equal the PE lost.

IOW's it does not matter what path is taken in the descent - the KE can never be made greater, only the time to traverse can be changed.

Oh.........Are you talking about my completely another Gravity power concept discussed in my other thread???

If yes,then I shall explain.Your observation about speed of balls on different paths is correct,but when we talk of Potential energy we don't talk of only P.E. between 2 points.We talk about P.E. between 2 points of all vertical lines through which a curve of path passes.
Meaning to say that largest distance needs more energy than short distance to cover.In that other concept,energy is regained + gained by changing the shape of the path along the path,and not along a straight path.

And one thing which many misunderstand is considering a single vertical P.E. -K.E. system.When my path of travel is not a straight vertical but a curve,it's obvious that many Potential Energy points occur in a 2-D plane and its not one single system of 2 points on a vertical line of potential Difference.

If you see carefully,gravity acts on each point of a path.So more Gravity points will be acting on a curved path than on a straight horrizontal path.That's because a inclined line between two points is larger than a straight horrizontal lines between the same 2 points.
The only problem here is mainly the frictional losses.

Just as many points make a line,many gravitational energy points make up summing of net Potential energy.

The Destination of balls be the same but they need to consume different amount of energy for covering different distances.IF YOU DON'T agree with this,then it's violation of Energy Conservation.

You cannot use X amount of energy completely for covering 800 metres as well as for covering 1500 metres.If that's true then you need to make free energy for covering 1500-800 metres.

To be more ellaborate,suppose between A & B you have to travel 500 units horrizontally and 800 units between A & B in a curved path.
Now gravity is acting on each unit.There is no unit or part of a path where gravity is not acting.It means that by changing the length of the path between two points you can increase the amount of gravitational energy gained.

Readers note that this path shape changing concept is different from the concept I am discussing in this thread mainly and this another concept is discussed on some other thread.

[raj]

Look at the drawing below and answer yourself if the path of a rising weight makes any difference.

Here, we have a seesaw, with fulcrum right in the middle.

one red and one black identical-weight balls on either end of the slightly slanting seesaw.

On this arrangement, the seesaw is balance.

We, manually, bring the seesaw to the horizontal position, but making sure that the red and black balls follow different path, as indicated by the colour of their path.

Both balls rise the same height and gain same P.E.

But their distances from the fulcrum are not the same.

Which one of the two balls, by following the different paths will help the seesaw to rotate onwards, by itself for however smallest fraction of time?

I BELIEVE THIS IS THE BASIS OF A POSSIBLE GRAVITY WHEEL: Changing path of weights to achieve Overbalance Wheel.

Raj

[Aman]

Yes,that's what we should focus on.
A gravity wheel will not most probably move on its own,since there are torque limitations and self weight of the wheel itself.
According to my research,for any gravity wheel what we need is an EXTERNAL energy supply to lift a heavy ball upward so that allmost double or even tripple gravitational energy is consumed by the weight/ball to help the wheel rotate and generate extra energy converted from gravitational energy iinput.Whatever be the detailed principle of gravity wheel,I think there is one allmost compulsory requirnment for any Gravity Motor Concept:

Intake of Gravitaional energy should be >>>>>>>>>>>>EXTERNAL energy(Electrical/Hydraulic/Solar or whatsoever) supplied.

Why this is that much Important?

Because,
OF these reasions:(1)torque limitations and self weight of the wheel itself.
        (2)Gravitational energy do work only when weight comes down or acts downwards.
         (3) it's feasible to intake more Graviational energy than that externally supplied in other form,as demonstrated by my two different concepts on my two different threads as of now on this website.

I sincierly think that most people simply don't think of this particular requirnment and here is where most people fail to develop good feasible gravity engie concepts.

I even have doubt that bessler might have considered this requirnment if Bessler wheel was a real thing.

[tismooothy]

I used to drive my car up a hill fast and coast down with this same idea in mind but, it seemed as though my gas mileage was better speeding down and coasting up. Also the water in your machine is also under the influence of gravity and is being displaced at the same speed as your weight resulting in a balanced state

[Aman]

I decided I should put it back.I had stopped working in the field due to tension and non-acceptance by skeptics.I think I must be again on track: https://flic.kr/p/KCHgvW

[Aman]

https://youtu.be/tBIghZwP-x4

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Aman,
Gravity needs only a chance to act. Here in the video you see a top heavy pendulum. The side force need only some gramm to make the system swing. But the result on ground will be the force of the upper weights. As you see also you have an oscilllation force, technically this is an amplifier.

As a demage/destroying force it will happen within a earth quake.